Closing arguments begin in Sanford, Florida. And the prosecution paints a picture of George Zimmerman as a wannabe cop whose wrongful assumptions resulted in death of Trayvon Martin. That is coming up.

Also, a 19-year-old makes a really bad joke on Facebook and spends four horrific months in a Texas jail charged with making terroristic threats. Tonight, Justin Carter is out of jail. And his father will be here to talk about what`s next.

Plus, "The Rise of the Warrior Cop". Author Radley Balko is here to talk about how American police departments are looking more and more like American military.

But we begin tonight with an absolute eruption of shock and fury on the floor of the House of Representatives, as Republicans jettisoned 47 million hungry Americans so that they can get on with the business of shoveling more money into the hands of big agricultural and special interests.

Since 1973, the farm bill has been crafted to yoke together the fates of the working poor, largely clustered in urban areas who depend on food stamps to avoid malnutrition with farmers and agricultural industry in America`s hinterlands. It`s a strange but oddly means of stitching together the two Americas.

But today, Republicans in the House sawed them apart, stripping the food stamp program from the farm bill entirely, a movement set off a monumental outburst of indignation from Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS)

REP. G.K. BUTTERFIELD (D), NORTH CAROLINA: Mr. Speaker, I have finally received a copy of the bill. It appears to have no nutrition title at all. Is this a printing error?

REP. DAVID CICILLINE (D), RHODE ISLAND: After an embarrassing chaotic defeat of their last proposal, they`ve decided to make a bad situation even worse.

REP. DAVID SCOTT (D), GEORGIA: You tell me how in the world we can have a farm bill and separate food and nutrition out from it.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D), TEXAS: In decades, you have never separated the supplemental nutrition program.

REP. LOUISE SLAUGHTER (D), NEW YORK: I really am embarrassed to say today that to feed people could be the reason why they would stop the farm bill.

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), MINORITY LEADER: The audacity to split off the nutrition parts of this bill is so stunning. It would be shocking except, this is a house of shocks. I would say it`s one of the worst things you`ve done, but there`s such stiff competition for that honor that I can`t really fully say that.

REP. STENY HOYER (D), MARYLAND: It was turned from a bipartisan bill into a partisan bill.

REP. JACKSON LEE: All the folk want is a piece of a sound bite at home to say they believe in deficit reduction.

BUTTERFIELD: They made a clear choice to protect generous subsidies for agricultural corporations at the expense of the hungry and working poor.

REP. EMANUEL CLEAVER (D), MISSOURI: This is not some little club. We are the Congress of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on this planet. And we can take care of all of people.

SLAUGHTER: This is the lowest of the low. When we can`t pass this, you know, ladies and gentlemen, they can`t run the House.

JACKSON LEE: The only thing that this house will do when it votes today is defeat starving children.

PELOSI: You are taking food out of the mouths of your own poor constituents.

HAYES: Every single Democrat in the House did vote no today. Along with 12 Republicans, but that was not enough to stop the Republicans` stripped down farm bill. It passed by an eight-vote margin, 216-208. The last version of this bill went down to surprising and embarrassing defeat last month because the hard right of the Republican Caucus was not satisfied with the $20 billion in cuts to the food stamp program.

And so, this time around, the leadership went along with folks like Louie Gohmert and Michele Bachmann who are pushing the bright idea of separating the food stamp cuts from the farm bill so they could focus solely on the farm stuff and really embrace not caring about the poor.

But here`s the best part. This is really begs for belief. Once Eric Cantor laughed off those pesky provisions to feed hungry Americans, the House very quietly stuffed more pork, more spending and more subsidies into what was left into the farm portion of the bill. What Republicans passed today will cost more than $195 billion over 10 years.

The conservative Heritage Foundation eviscerated today`s bill on those very grounds, saying Republicans, quote, "wasted the golden opportunity that separation of the farm programs from food stamps could have provided to spend more money than Obama on the largest farm program."

Remember that line the next time any one of those 216 House Republicans talks about how much they hate government spending.

Joining me now is Congresswoman Donna Edwards, Democrat from Maryland.

And, Congresswoman, we just played the tape of your colleagues on the House floor. You deal with a lot from the House Republicans. What was it about today that seemed to create this breaking point?

REP. DONNA EDWARDS (D), MARYLAND: Well, I think that what happened today is that we saw in living color, House Republicans standing on the side of increased subsidies, more deficit spending, and just sending hungry families straight up under the bus. I mean, it really was outrageous, and I think that Democrats today reached a tipping point.

I mean, I am so proud of Democrats. Every single Democrat who stood shoulder to shoulder with poor and working families in this country, who just want a meal.

And Republicans really deep-sixed them today.

HAYES: You had a question during today`s floor debate, a parliamentary question about an amendment that had been proposed. This is one of my favorite amendments. That would stop members of Congress from receiving payments through the farm subsidy program.

What ended up happening to that amendment?

EDWARDS: Well, what I wanted is for the Republicans actually to operate with transparency and with accountability and actually prohibit members of Congress who get farm subsidies, who get taxpayer subsidies, who are financed by taxpayers from voting on legislation that would financially benefit them.

HAYES: There are several members of Congress, yes?

EDWARDS: There are a number of members of Congress who receive taxpayer subsidies and they voted on the bill that would benefit them today. It was outrageous.

HAYES: Do you think what we are seeing here is the logical conclusion of a House Republican caucus that really has cemented in its mind the Mitt Romney 47 percent makers and takers framework who really do see the 45 million folks that are struggling to get by, that are beneficiaries of SNAP as essentially lay-abouts, as lazy, as unworthy, as people that need to be punished, or they`re going to lay in the hammock of the social safety net?

EDWARDS: I think we heard it from their own mouths today. I mean, the Representative Sessions actually described those hardworking Americans as extraneous. And I did a hashtag, #extraneous to the farm bill as though somehow you really could separate farm from food for hungry people.

And so, they said it out of their own words. We didn`t have to make it up today. They said it on the floor of the House of Representatives. They said to 47 million Americans across the country, we`re not going to feed you, even though we know you`re hungry, and yet we`re going to subsidize both ourselves and big corporate farming interests across this country.

HAYES: What, then, happens to these folks? I mean, today was an outrage. It was precedent breaking.

What is next? I mean, there are so many people in this country that are dependent upon this program. What is the next move here?

EDWARDS: Well, and, you know, oddly enough, many of those people who are dependent on these programs are from the congressional districts of members who voted for this outreach today. And so, I think that, you know, those families who are receiving food stamps, school nutrition programs, Meals on Wheels, all across this country, our seniors, are disabled, need to stand up in those congressional districts because I`m going to tell you something. It`s not really the people in my congressional district who benefit the most from these programs --

HAYES: Right.

EDWARDS: -- it`s the people in those congressional districts from Kentucky and Missouri and Alabama, and all across this country. And they need to stand up to their legislators who voted today to say to 47 million families, hardworking -- I mean, most of the families who are actually receiving these benefits go to work every day, Chris. They contribute every day. They are part of the fabric of this country.

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: And they are not a part of the fabric as far as the House Republican caucus was concerned today.

EDWARDS: That`s right.

HAYES: Congresswoman Donna Edwards, thank you so much.

Joining me now is Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a federal budget watchdog group.

Steve, you followed this bill more closely than anyone I know and have been e-mailing me for a week, tearing your hair out, saying I cannot tell you how terrible this is. It`s worse than you could have imagined. Why is it so bad? What did the House Republicans do with this bill?

STEVE ELLIS, TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE: Well, first off, Chris, I mean, one thing is we have not been -- we actually do think separating the two is not necessarily a bad idea because I think the log rolling that`s gone on has inhibited reform in both areas. But that doesn`t mean we`re saying we shouldn`t go ahead with SNAP, and maybe gone ahead with SNAP first.

But as far as the ag portion, where we do a lot of focusing, we`ve taken, you know, you`ve mentioned the hammock of the safety net -- well, the ag safety net is really a hammock for farmers. We just had the worst drought in a generation and we had one of the best farm income years in history.

And so, you realize that this is really not a safety net. It`s really propping them up. We`re guaranteeing farmers up to 80 percent of revenue today. This bill would actually add in these new shallow loss programs that would provide insurance up to 90 percent of revenue. I mean, what American wouldn`t have wanted a deal like that? We`re bringing back countercyclical policies where we`re setting target prices, where we`re going to make sure that the commodities don`t go below that.

HAYES: Here`s what I`m hearing from you.

ELLIS: Yes.

HAYES: The way the programs work is, look, we all as Americans face risks. People lose their jobs in the service sector all the time.

The way this farm program works is the government pays for insurance, essentially, to make sure you don`t lose more than 10 percent of your income in a given year.

ELLIS: Exactly. There`s a little bit that comes from the farmers, but more than 60 percent of the crop insurance comes from us. And so, yes, there`s almost -- we`ve removed risk from agriculture. It is a purely profit-making going right now.

HAYES: And I`m sure I`ll just say this, e are millions of service workers in this country making minimum wage, $8, $9, $10, folks we were talking about yesterday in D.C. who are maybe going to work at those Walmart stores. I`m sure everyone would love a federal subsidized insurance on their income to make sure that from year to year, if there was a disruption, they would not lose too much.

ELLIS: Absolutely. Then what made this bill, the one they rolled out at 8:00 p.m. last night --

HAYES: Six hundred-page bill they rolled out at 8:00 p.m. and voted on today. Let me be clear about this. A 600-page bill they rolled out at 8:00 p.m. yesterday and voted on today. Yes.

ELLIS: Absolutely. They told all of their conference it`s exactly the same as what was amended at the end that failed last month. But when we looked at the bill, because we actually do read the bills, and we found in there that they essentially made this permanent law -- all the bill before it was expiring in 2018. Actually this is going to be the law of the land in perpetuity.

HAYES: Wait a second. You`re telling me a month ago they had those provisions that were going to sunset. Voted on today, told their own caucus there were no changes but in fact lied about it and change things that were going to sunset permanent in perpetuity.

ELLIS: Exactly. Exactly.

They repealed what used to be the cudgel that make the farm bill go was that they would say, oh, no, we`d have to revert to depression era permanently, in `49, and the `30s. So they repealed that, but then they made this bill permanent. So, instead of having a not so great thing of having the thread of the `48, `49 law --

HAYES: Steve Ellis from Taxpayers for Common Sense, thank you so much.

ELLIS: Thank you, Chris.

HAYES: All right.

Coming up, second-degree murder or manslaughter? The jury is given a new option in the trial of George Zimmerman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Quick update on a story we covered yesterday: the intra-family fight over solar power among conservatives. Last night I told you about the leaders of the Atlanta Tea Party who want to expand solar energy in Georgia. They see this as a free market issue. And the Koch brothers heavily invested in fossil fuels who predictably want utility regulators to reject a new solar plant.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DEBBIE DOOLEY, ATLANTA TEA PARTY: We want to give consumers a choice. This solar plan will not have to be subsidized and we believe that this giant utility monopoly deserves some competition, and consumers deserve a choice.

HAYES: You know, I --

DOOLEY: It`s just that simple.

HAYES: This is music to my years. I think this is where you and I can agree about monopolies.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Well, today, Georgia`s Public Service Commission voted 4-1 to require that Georgia power adds more solar power to its network, a victory for Debbie Dooley who you saw there and for Georgians, and the planet.

We also learned today that Barry Goldwater, Jr., the son of Barry Goldwater, aka Mr. Conservative, is also pro-solar and has been fighting the largest electrical company over solar power in Arizona.

So, fight on, pro-solar conservatives. I will be cheering for you.

We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own. He is dead because another manmade assumptions. Unfortunately, because his assumptions were wrong, Trayvon Benjamin Martin no longer walks on this earth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That`s House closing arguments began in the trial of George Zimmerman who is charged with second-degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin.

Mr. Zimmerman pleaded not guilty, claiming self-defense. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda spent the better part of his two and a half hour presentation, focusing on the discrepancies in Mr. Zimmerman of the night in question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DE LA RIONDA: Decides to go back to his car. When this man came out of the bushes, you will see that he changes that and catches himself.

He didn`t realize originally that he had shot the victim. Well, if he`s in such fear and he doesn`t realize he`s shot him, what the heck is he doing holstering his gun?

He originally told the police over and over before and even after this interview he didn`t know the name of the street. And then, when they just kind of let him talk, he gives the name right there. I mean, it`s common sense. There`s only three streets and he`s lived there four years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: Possibly, the most important thing that happened today was the prosecution`s successfully getting a lesser charge included for the jury`s consideration. So, the jury can now convict George Zimmerman of second degree murder or it can convict him of the lesser charge of manslaughter in the first-degree. Or the jury can acquit him.

Closing arguments for the defense begin tomorrow.

Joining me now is Lisa Green, attorney and legal analyst.

Lisa, great to have you here.

My first question to you is how significant was getting the lesser included charge? What`s the difference, the burden of proof between getting to the manslaughter charge and getting to the second-degree murder charge?

LISA GREEN, ATTORNEY: It was a significant aid to the prosecution, Chris. And the big difference is malice. What was going on in George Zimmerman`s mind when he shot Trayvon martin? Did he have something close to a malicious intent to kill him? Much higher burden. Under the manslaughter charge, simple negligence can do.

So, that`s obviously an aid to the prosecution. No matter what pundits say about how this is some capitulation by the prosecution to include a weaker charge. There`s no question, they want a conviction. And this is a better rule.

HAYES: Under the context of the burden of proof being what it is, beyond a reasonable doubt, you don`t want to create a forced choice, if you`re the prosecution between letting him walk entirely and the second-degree murder charge, which requires them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a state of mind that seems to me as an amateur viewer of this trial a difficult thing to establish.

GREEN: Right. Take note of the defense`s decision to want of sort of roll the dice there and say we`ll go for either second degree or nothing. A dramatic move, but it indicates a sort of confidence they have that they`ve got what it takes to acquit George Zimmerman.

HAYES: There were two main themes in the defense closing -- of the prosecution`s closing today, I`m sorry. The first were the discrepancies that we saw de la Rionda talking about there. How effective did you find that? I found it effective.

But what I kept thinking was, this seems inverted to me. This sounds like a defense case, because the defense that I`ve been accustom to questioning credibility to stir doubts because they only have to create doubts, they don`t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

What did you think of it?

GREEN: I think a road to conviction in is case by necessity goes to George Zimmerman`s narrative. And remember, he`s told his story several times. The jury has heard all sorts of different versions of George Zimmerman on audiotape, on videotape.

What do they have left to challenge the discrepancies? Because at the end of the day, to use a tired cliche, the jury is left with those narratives. Where was the affirmative narrative the prosecution could put on in this case when Trayvon Martin is not here to tell that story?

HAYES: That`s exactly what`s so frustrating about watching this entire thing. You have two people -- the only two people who are there, one survived and one is dead. And so, you have that one person`s account. I thought the discrepancies they did point out, though, lead one to view George Zimmerman in unkind light, and at worst to think this is someone who knew he did something wrong who immediately started fabricating a story to make sure that he could get off.

Is that basically the theory of the prosecution here?

GREEN: Well, the prosecution actually has to meet, as you know, certain technical standards of evidence. But what it really does, Chris, is sets up a very interesting day tomorrow, because what the defense will do in my opinion is telescope the story. The prosecution led us through a fairly long narrative: Zimmerman`s understanding of self-defense law, his thoughts going into e fatal moments. I think the defense is going to want to focus those jurors on the moments before Trayvon Martin --

HAYES: Right, because there are all these actions George Zimmerman takes beforehand. The fact what he says to the nonemergency call line. The fact he ignores repeated requests to not follow. The fact he does follow Trayvon Martin. The fact he follows him and seems to change his story about whether or not he followed him, that he knows where the streets are or not.

GREEN: He knows about self-defense law.

HAYES: That he knows about self-defense law.

GREEN: To sort of construct his own narrative after the fact, the prosecution would say, to absolve himself of liability.

HAYES: That he gets out of the car, perhaps stalks this young kid who`s done nothing wrong. All of those are included today. We got the full timeline, and the idea is to create an idea of a notion of someone who does have this malice.

Here, let me play the closing in which they use some of the -- invoke some of the language that George Zimmerman used on that night and the following day. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DE LA RIONDA: They always come around at nighttime. They being, pardon my language, the (EXPLETIVE DELETED), or the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) punks that are committing these burglaries. Again, going back to that assumption that he made originally when he profiled a 17-year-old boy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: So I find that incredibly damning, as in terms of my moral judgment of who this person is, that he would say these things, that he had these assumptions. Is it legally damning?

GREEN: It`s meaningful if you need to prove some sort of intent, that he sort of had an idea in his mind as he met Trayvon Martin on that fateful night that this was someone who was going to do wrong and it`s critical for the prosecution for jurors to really understand Zimmerman`s mindset that way. I would think no matter which charge they consider.

HAYES: So tomorrow what you think we`re going to see is shrinking the timeline and focus on the 40 seconds, which is what has been invoked in testimony of the struggle that happens.

GREEN: Well, there`s that and witnesses we didn`t hear about today -- significantly, that particular neighbor who testified and, remember, knew neither of the parties involved and testified he thought George Zimmerman was under attack. And I think you`re going to see the defense reminding jurors of his testimony because it was so, almost central cast incredible.

HAYES: Quickly, what`s the standard here for self-defense? I mean, it cannot be the case because you have some paranoid delusion that someone is going to kill you, you can kill them and walk. What is the standard?

GREEN: Here`s a good way to look at it. Put yourself in mind of the juror sitting in the jury box. If you were in George Zimmerman`s position, what would you have done?

HAYES: Right.

Attorney Lisa Green, thank you very much. Really appreciate it.

All right. Imagine serving jail time for something you posted on Facebook. It happened to one 19-year-old in Texas. I`m going to talk to his father, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: Imagine spending four months in jail, some of it in solitary confinement, for posting a stupid comment on Facebook. For 19-year-old Justin Carter, writing something offensive and awful online has led to very real life consequences, being indicted for making a terroristic threat and facing up to 10 years in prison.

Back in February, Carter, who lives in San Antonio, Texas, got into a trash talking argument over the online video game "League of Legends". According to his father, Carter was told that he was, quote, "Messed up in the head", to which Carter shot back, "I`m F`d up in the head, all right, I`m going to shoot up a kindergarten and watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of them."

Now, it`s obvious to anyone that that is a horrible, horrible thing to write. And right after the deadly shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, you could imagine why it might be taken seriously.

Carter`s father Jack said they were made in jest, those comments. And his son followed them with a message, LOL, for laugh out loud, and JK for just kidding.

Someone, though, took the comments very seriously, and tipped off law enforcement. In a detailed write up, ALL IN`s reporter Nick Resnikoff writes that a Canadian national took a screen shot of Carter`s post and sent it to the Canadian Crime Stoppers Association. That information made its way to the Austin Police Department.

And believing Carter to be an Austin resident living within half a mile of an elementary school, the department issued an arrest warrant. The arrest took place two months to the day after Sandy Hook.

According to the "Austin Chronicle," police searched Carter`s home, found no weapons or letters of intent. And regardless of this fact, bail was set at half a million dollars, higher than bonds set for murders and rapists and other clients represented by Carter`s attorney, more than Justin Carter`s family could possibly afford.

After months in jail, where Carter, according to his dad, suffered terrible assaults, concussions, black eyes and was moved four times for his own protection, the story began to gain national attention. And just a few hours ago, an anonymous supporter paid the $500,000 bond. And, tonight, Justin Carter is home.

JACK CARTER, SON JAILED FOR FACEBOOK COMMENT: He`s doing actually really well considering the situation. He`s just -- he was very surprised. He wasn`t expecting it. And so we got to surprise him this morning. And we got a good meal in him and he`s in a nice, safe place with a good bed and he`s just really happy to be out and be with his parents and be able to enjoy sunshine and a nice bed.

HAYES: So I`ve got to ask both you and Don, you as well, I -- it seems crazy to me that you could face 10 years for writing something on Facebook. At the same time when I go back to covering Sandy Hook, when I think about the weeks and months after that, and when I think about if someone had perpetrated a horrible crime such as that and there had been a Facebook posting beforehand, I think everyone would be pointing to it screaming, why didn`t you do something? Weren`t the authorities right to step in here?

DON FLANNARY, ATTORNEY FOR JUSTICE CARTER: Chris, absolutely. Law enforcement needs to be vigilant. Particularly in these times and particularly when we hear comments that were made. The problem is that once they realized that this is just some kid saying something stupid, making a sarcastic comment, that`s when it should have ended and it`s atrocious that he had to spend five months in jail because his bond is at $500,000.

Because he`s poor and he can`t get out of jail. That`s the problem that we have with what has happened to Justin.

HAYES: So the -- is the problem the law here or the way the law`s being handled by local prosecutors?

FLANNARY: In my opinion, it`s the way that the law is being applied. We need to have tough laws that protect the community. We need to have law enforcement that are vigilant and that look at these threats very seriously. But thinking that Justin is a terrorist or a criminal or the things he said were criminal is just plain wrong. He has a First Amendment right to express himself on the Internet. He did not threaten anyone. He made a stupid comment.

And the problem is, lots of people all over this country, young and old, make --

CARTER: Make stupid comments.

FLANNARY: -- stupid comments. And are we going to prosecute all of those? Are we going to investigate all of those?

HAYES: Jack --

FLANNARY: This is just --

HAYES: Jack, my understanding here is that a plea deal has been offered of eight years and he`s still facing 10 years. I mean, how do get your head around what Justin`s facing now even now that he`s out of jail?

CARTER: You can`t wrap your head around it. It`s been the most surreal thing that`s happened to our family or anyone that I know. We literally to this day I still can`t believe that it`s happening and the whole thing just seems ridiculous to me.

HAYES: Having, being thrown into jail at 19 years old, into general population, I can`t imagine that was an easy experience for Justin. What were those four months in jail like for him?

CARTER: They were absolute hell. He was tormented. All of his stuff was stolen. He was beaten, jumped. They moved him around. They put him in isolation naked for a couple of days on end because he was depressed.

It had to have been extremely scarring to him and, you know, now that he`s out, I just want to get working on, you know, fixing it and getting it going, you know, getting him better.

HAYES: He now still faces these charges. What is the statute that he is being charged under, Don?

FLANNARY: He`s being charged with terroristic threats. There`s -- it`s a felony. It`s a serious felony. It`s akin to making a bomb threat. He`s being charged with putting a substantial part of the public in fear of violence. And that`s not what he did. He answered in an argument from someone else and this is being taken way out of proportion.

HAYES: Yes, and no one would have seen this if it weren`t screen grabbed and sent to the authorities. It`s not like he --

FLANNARY: Right.

HAYES: -- made a call into the local basketball stadium and said there`s a bomb there, right? I mean, this is something that was not being broadly displayed. It was essentially between two people.

FLANNARY: That`s right. It wasn`t even meant for public consumption.

HAYES: Right.

FLANNARY: It was between arguing individuals. No different than if we were standing in line and you and I were arguing and someone overheard us. It`s not meant to go out to the public. It`s meant to be sarcastic to another person. It`s not a -- it`s not a public threat. And he`s now finally we`ve released him, we got him out, but he spent five months of his life in jail over this.

HAYES: Jack Carter, Justin Carter`s father, and Don Flannary, the attorney who is representing him. I wish both of you, gentlemen, good luck.

CARTER: Thank you.

FLANNARY: Thank you so much, Chris.

HAYES: We`ll be right back with "Click3."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: We are beginning to see stories coming out of the Miami, Florida, police department that are eerily reminiscent of the LAPD of the 1990s. A shocking new report coming up.

And Radley Balko, author of "The Rise of the Warrior Cop", is coming up, too.

But first I want to show you the three awesomest things on the Internet today beginning with a reminder to always double check your work.

Joan Didion is an American literary icon. Her essays, novels and her memoirs have earned her both critical acclaim and legions of fans. So it was disappointing to read this tweet earlier, sent from the account @Joandidion. "My last full day on Twitter." Several postscripts soon followed, "I`m quitting Twitter because there`s no way to communicate meaningfully without context. I`m quitting Twitter because I don`t understand how Twitter helps anyone do anything."

Might have a point there.

"The Wall Street Journal" for long was deeply troubled by these developments so much so that a column was properly written lamenting Didion exit. Except a one-second fact-check will bring you to @joandidion`s profile page where you`ll find out two things. The account is not verified and in a short bio Joan`s tweet inspired by Joan. She dislikes microblogs and edited by a chill dude who writes and work from advertising at Eric Stinson. A chill dude named Eric.

Not the 78-year-old author. "Wall Street Journal" issued a correction, but the damage had been done, prompting this follow-up from @joandidion, I`m quitting Twitter because of misinformation.

The second awesomest thing on the Internet today, the latest thing to shake up the art world. You may recall a few months back, actress Tilda Swinton took a nap in a glass box MoMa called it art. Yesterday visitors to the gallery in Manhattan were treated to something decidedly more interactive. This is Jay-Z rapping with gallery goers, face-to-face and one-by- one for six hours.

And much of it was captured on vine, six seconds at a time. It`s all for a documusic video featuring the track "Picasso Baby." So it was only fitting that Pablo Picasso`s hand showed up along with scores of other (INAUDIBLE). Jay-Z`s foray to high art was modeled after Marina Abramovic`s "The Artist is Present" in which the legendary performance artist sat face to face with different museum goers for hours.

And in a super cool twist Abramovic was present yesterday. Here she is face to face with Jay-Z. It does not get any more meta than that.

And the third awesomest thing on the Internet today requires very little set-up. This is 2-year-old Titus Ashby. His basketball prowess has made him an Internet start. Titus was having a pretty good morning knocking down jumpers on the set of "FOX & Friends" that is until Brian Kilmeade showed up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: See that? That`s (INAUDIBLE) rules right there. That`s what happens. He`s going to face that when he plays ball.

KILMEADE: I don`t believe it. I don`t believe it. All right. We`ll be right back. We`ll see how Titus is. Sorry. Sorry, dad.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Brian, you`re fired.

KILMEADE: All right. We`ll check in with Titus again. We`ll give it another shot. I still think we`re friends.

Straight ahead, he confessed orchestrating the September 11th attacks. So why is KSM allowed to put a vacuum cleaner together?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The tease was the best part.

Quick public service announcement, I play catch with my daughter, Ryan, a lot, but I don`t chuck the ball at her face because she`s only 19 months old. And that`s "The More You Know."

You can find all the links for tonight`s "#click3" on our Web site, allinwithChris.com. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HAYES: In a span of eight months from 2010 to 2011 the Miami Police Department shot and killed seven young black men. Two who were completely unarmed. Between 2008 and 2011, Miami Police Department officers intentionally shot at people 33 different times.

Those numbers come from a damning Department of Justice report released this week. It paints a picture of a police department that is completely off the leash. A department that from 2008 to 2011, quote, "engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive use of force through officer-involved shootings."

The DOJ found a number of troubling practices including deficient tactics and supervision, significant delays and substantive deficiencies in deadly force investigations." In fact, the report found that Miami PD has at this very moment still not fully investigated the 33 shooting incidents. Investigations that had they been carried out quickly could very well have saved lives.

The report found that a combination of seven officers participated in over a third of the 33 officer-involved shootings. Of those 33 shootings, killed of them 27-year-old Travis McNeil. He was shot and killed by Miami PD Officer Reynaldo Goyos on a routine traffic stop on February 11th, 2011. He was holding nothing but a cell phone. His mother, Sheila, who fought to hold the department accountable for her son`s death, hopes this week`s reports give her a bit of closure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHEILA MCNEIL, SON KILLED BY POLICE: I say thanks to the federal government for finally seeing things our way. It`s like it happened yesterday, to me, you know? I miss my son very much. And I`m just glad this is, you know, is coming to some type of conclusion, you know? Maybe I can get some type of closure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: The Department of Justice`s report pulled back the veil on a particularly rotten Miami Police Department. The department that regularly uses an excess of force.

The use of excess force by police against the very citizens they`re sworn to protect is by no means limited to Miami. In an amazing new book titled "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko argues the paramilitarization of police departments across the country is leading to a police force that increasingly sees itself at war with the American people.

And joining me now is the author of "Rise of the Warrior Cop," Radley Balko, who`s also a senior writing for the "Huffington Post."

Great to have you here.

RIDLEY BALKO, "RISE OF THE WARRIOR COP" AUTHOR: Good to be here.

HAYES: It`s a fantastic book, it`s really remarkable reporting.

BALKO: Thanks.

HAYES: I really suggest folks check it out.

What did you make of this Miami -- this report from the DOJ on Miami? How atypical? Where is this department on this spectrum?

BALKO: Well, it`s interesting you said it was reminiscent of the -- of LAPD in the `90s. It`s actually reminiscent of the Miami Police Department in the `90s as well as the early 2000s.

This is not the first DOJ investigation in Miami. In 2003, there were several officers who were indicted for planting guns at shootings.

HAYES: Wow.

BALKO: For wiping fingerprints off of guns at shootings. In 1996, Miami -- a squad of Miami cops shot Richard Brown, who`s also unarmed, 123 times while his daughter hid in the bathroom.

You know, this is sort of part of the theme in the book is that, you know, you can have rogue officers, you know, you can have bad police officers. You keep getting bad police officers over and over and over again, at some point you have to start looking at policy and you have to start looking at incentives, and try to understand why you`re producing --

(CROSSTALK)

HAYES: What about the system is doing it? So you -- what is broadly the argument of the "Rise of the Warrior Cop? What`s new? What has risen? What do we have now that we didn`t before?

BALKO: I think we have -- there are two things going on. One is you have the rise of SWAT teams which has been dramatic over the last 30 years. We`ve seen about a 1500 percent in the use of SWAT teams since the early 1980s.

HAYES: Fifteen hundred percent?

BALKO: That`s right. So there are about 3,000 SWAT raids per year in the early `80s. About 2005 there were about 50,000 SWAT per year. The vast majority of those are, you know, for consensual drug crimes.

But what I also argue in the book, though, is that this militarization, it`s a mindset, right? It`s not just the SWAT teams. It bleeds over into patrol officers who are, you know, also told every day that they`re fighting a war and are also sort of dressed like soldiers and encouraged to take on a soldier`s mentality.

And this is, you know, the military and the police have two different functions. It`s pretty dangerous to conflate them. But I think that`s what we started to do -- that`s what we have done.

HAYES: I want to play this clip. This got a lot of attention back in 2010. This is video of a SWAT raid in Columbia, Missouri. And you don`t often see footage of this kind of thing. Take a look.

HAYES: In that raid, police believe the suspect, Jonathan Woodworth, was a major distributor of marijuana. They found just very small amounts for recreational use.

How atypical is that kind of scene?

BALKO: Well, that`s the thing about this video is I mean there was outrage when this was posted on the Internet.

HAYES: Those dogs were killed, by the way.

BALKO: One was killed, they intended to kill one. They accidentally shot the other one. So, you know, there are stray bullets going around. There`s a little boy in the house. But the thing about it, I mean, that raid is typical. There is -- these are not rogue cops. I mean, this is policy. This is what happens 100 to 150 times a day in this country.

In fact, the only thing that`s really unusual about this raid is the fact that it was video recorded and released and made it on to the Internet.

HAYES: So I am a police officer who has to put my life on the line.

BALKO: Sure.

HAYES: And there`s a call about a suspect in a house. Do you want to just go in unarmed? I mean, there`s a reason, right, that they`re -- that they`re coming at these doors with the kind of force and the kind of tactics and the kind of intensity they are which is that they are -- they are at risk when they`re serving these warrants.

BALKO: Look, I`m not opposed to SWAT teams. I mean I think there are situations where it`s appropriate, but those are situations like hostage takings or bank robberies or escaped fugitive where you`re using -- you`re using violence to defuse an already violent situation.

The vast majority of the raids including one we just watched, the police are creating violence. Right? They`re creating confrontation. They`re creating volatility. I mean, these people are suspected of nonviolent consensual crimes and you`re bringing violence to their door. That`s really where the problem is.

HAYES: I want you to walk us through a little bit of how this started. The role that Richard Nixon plays in the "Rise of the Warrior Cop," the role of post-9/11 plays, and the amount of money that is going at the local police departments. It`s one of the most eye-opening parts of your book right after we take this break.

BALKO: Sure.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BALKO: Quick update on a story we covered on Tuesday. The southern avenger, aka Jack Hunter, the guy who thought John Wilkes Booth`s heart was in the right place when he shot Abraham Lincoln, who also happens to work for Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, was defended by his boss today. In the "Huffington Post" Senator Paul said that while he opposed Hunter`s views, many of which Hunters say he no longer believes, he called them, quote, "a youthful -- a form of youthful political showmanship," and said that if he was a really a white supremacist, as some are calling him, he would have fired him immediately.

It`s nice to know Senator Paul`s heart is in the right place. We`ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RICHARD NIXON, U.S. PRESIDENT: America`s public enemy number one in the United States is drug abuse. In order to fight and defeat this enemy, it is necessary to wage a new all-out offensive. As far as the new money is concerned, incidentally, I have made it clear to the leaders that if this is not enough, if more can be used, if Dr. Jaffey after studying this problem finds that we can use more, more will be provided.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HAYES: That of course was Richard Nixon officially launching the U.S. war on drugs in 1971.

I`m here with Radley Balko. We`re talking about his new book "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America`s Police Forces."

What role does the war on drugs have on this trend that you identified?

BALKO: It`s been fueling it. I mean, without the war on drug, I don`t think we would have the proliferation of SWAT teams and the general militarization that we do.

HAYES: A lot of these SWAT teams are going after drugs, it`s drug raids largely they`re doing. What I think -- one other thing I found so fascinating in your book is just the amount of money that is being spent on vehicles and armor and all these kind of toys for lack of a better word.

BALKO: Yes.

HAYES: It reminds me of a consistent theme in American politics which is that once you label something security, it no longer counts as spending.

BALKO: Yes.

HAYES: Like we don`t want -- like we have to tighten our belts. But if something`s security, I love this portion of your book. This is "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of god. That Sheriff Leon Lott of Richland County, South Carolina, quoting Matthew 5: 9 in a press release, announcing his acquisition of a truck-propelled armored personnel carrier with a belt-fed rotating machine gun capable of firing .50 caliber rounds of ammunition."

BALKO: Yes.

HAYES: There are police departments across country in really small localities that have massive firepower. Where`s the money come from?

BALKO: Well, there are several different sources. For about 25 years now, the Pentagon has been giving surplus military equipment over to these police departments across the country, literally millions of pieces of equipment have been transferred this way. And we`re talking, you know, tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers. My favorite, bayonets for some reason, police departments seem to love the bayonets.

So you`ve got that. Then you`ve got the federal anti-drug grants. And these are grants the federal government gives to this police department solely for drug policing. So if your SWAT team goes out and arrests a suspected murderer, there`s no federal money attached to that.

HAYES: Wow.

BALKO: They go out and arrest the suspected pot dealer. You get a lot of money coming from the federal money for that.

HAYES: So you`re creating an incentive system to do these raids because the raids create the possibility of acquiring the money to buy the equipment?

BALKO: Your SWAT team can then become a revenue enhancer rather than an expensive sort of toy that you have on the side. And since September 11th, now we have DHS writing grants to police departments across the country to buy yet more equipment in the name of fighting the war on terror. And, you know, they`re going to places like Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

HAYES: So one of the things we saw during the Boston -- the aftermath of Boston bombing was this total lockdown of Boston. And we saw -- I think we have a little bit of video of what that looked like in terms of the amount of firepower that was brought to bear. I mean, we just saw huge police military, you know, quasi-military vehicles rolling through the streets. People in tactical gear.

And my thinking at the time was while I`m glad they have all this stuff because this is terrifying and there is these -- you know, these terrorists who are on the loose who have pulled off this bombing. And when you look at that, I mean, that is the justification for this. What`s your response to that?

BALKO: Well, I mean, how did they find Tsarnaev? A guy went out, saw something suspicious in his backyard, called the police. They responded with a SWAT team. I mean, it was not -- the sort of saturation patrols were not what actually found him. And, again, I`m not opposed o SWAT teams. Bringing a SWAT team out to apprehend him in that situation is perfectly legitimate.

HAYES: It`s the routine use in the kind of growth of their use.

Radley Balko, author of the "Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America`s Police Forces." Thanks. Incredible read.

That is ALL IN for this evening. The "RACHEL MADDOW SHOW" starts right now.

Good evening, Rachel.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2013 NBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2013 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>